D&D 5E What is the best class for a single class only campaign?

[Argyle King]

I could see a group of Artillerist Artificiers being quite good.

No one person would be immensely powerful, but -combined- you could cover a lot of different roles.
-------

For Bards, I think an entire party of Kenku Bards would be fun for the players but a headache for the DM. The only song they would know would be "row row row your.... row row row your.... row row row your... boat... boat... boat... merrily... merrily..."

 

[TwoSix]

what is the Eric Noah is my half-fiend love child option for anyway?

It's mostly an indicator that I'm really old and have been posting here for a very long time. It was kind of a joke around here circa 2000-2001.

 

[Scott Christian]

I went with bard. They are the catch all; fighter-rogues with spells.

 

[TwoSix]

As one of the 3 people who voted for Homebrew, my actual pick for best class for a single class party was Kibblestasty's Inventor. https://www.gmbinder.com/pdf/-LAEn6ZdC6lYUKhQ67Qk/5e---artificer-kibblestasty.pdf

Warsmith as the "Fighter"/Tank
Relicsmith as the "Cleric"/Healer
Infusionsmith as the "Wizard"
Thundersmith and/or Gadgetsmith as the "Rogues"/damage dealers/utility.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It's mostly an indicator that I'm really old and have been posting here for a very long time. It was kind of a joke around here circa 2000-2001.

can you explain as I was two- three back then.

 

[Zardnaar]

If that is what your game needs, go for it.
I just add every tasha option for monks and rangers. That helps 4e monk and beastmaster ranger a lot.
Is still don't share your assessment of the artificer, not even the alchemist.

I allow the Tashas options.

Probably gonna do s formal ban list soon. Picking up a couple of new players soon and things like summoners slow things down in larger groups. Things like that and Treantmonks S and F ratings probably gonna be banned.



Artificer tier lists I was referencing. Main difference between the two Treatmonk has two more tiers and S tier idvfor borderline OP stuff and he rates the early levels higher.
Dungeon Dudes S tier is just really good stuff and OP stuff and they consider the early teens more.

I don't always agree with them due to what I've seen with my own eyes or in some cases I know a build better.

But they're usually in the ballpark.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I allow the Tashas options.

Probably gonna do s formal ban list soon. Picking up a couple of new players soon and things like summoners slow things down in larger groups. Things like that and Treantmonks S and F ratings probably gonna be banned.



Artificer tier lists I was referencing. Main difference between the two Treatmonk has two more tiers and S tier idvfor borderline OP stuff and he rates the early levels higher.
Dungeon Dudes S tier is just really good stuff and OP stuff and they consider the early teens more.

I don't always agree with them due to what I've seen with my own eyes or in some cases I know a build better.

But they're usually in the ballpark.

I see. I think the order of the artificer classes is correct. I however don´t think that they rate that low. But then the most effective barbarians are in the same tier...

I do strongly believe that the Artificers all should be put one tier higher. A caster with half access to spells and the ability to create magic items can`t rank that low.

 

[Zardnaar]

I see. I think the order of the artificer classes is correct. I however don´t think that they rate that low. But then the most effective barbarians are in the same tier...

I do strongly believe that the Artificers all should be put one tier higher. A caster with half access to spells and the ability to create magic items can`t rank that low.

The magic items don't matter that much lower level and are easily duplicated by spells from a primary caster.

The magic items do get interesting that's when every artificer can make a semi decent skirmisher.

They don't get enough spells to do much, the spell list has a bit of utility but so do primary casters.

And the other two half casters can deal buckets of damage which most artificers struggle with.

I can take pretty much any cleric, accomplish pretty much the same thing, deal more damage, and be a primary cast and better at buffing/healing etc.

So even at things artificers may be good at they're outclassed.

If a campaign hands out extra items that's kinda cool but they can't really attune that many more anyway until the higher levels but that's not when artificers need the help.

When the average game wraps up around level 7 and probably done by level 10 becoming ok at 10 and decent later is way to late.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The magic items don't matter that much lower level and are easily duplicated by spells from a primary caster.

The magic items do get interesting that's when every artificer can make a semi decent skirmisher.

They don't get enough spells to do much, the spell list has a bit of utility but so do primary casters.

And the other two half casters can deal buckets of damage which most artificers struggle with.

I can take pretty much any cleric, accomplish pretty much the same thing, deal more damage, and be a primary cast and better at buffing/healing etc.

So even at things artificers may be good at they're outclassed.

If a campaign hands out extra items that's kinda cool but they can't really attune that many more anyway until the higher levels but that's not when artificers need the help.

When the average game wraps up around level 7 and probably done by level 10 becoming ok at 10 and decent later is way to late.

not really...

there is a thing called concentration that limits what you can do with a spell slot.
Also: being "outclassed" by a cleric does not mean that much. I never said artificers are S or A tier. But all are rated one tier too low.

 

[ECMO3]

Artificer tier lists I was referencing. Main difference between the two Treatmonk has two more tiers and S tier idvfor borderline OP stuff and he rates the early levels higher.
Dungeon Dudes S tier is just really good stuff and OP stuff and they consider the early teens more.

I don't always agree with them due to what I've seen with my own eyes or in some cases I know a build better.

But they're usually in the ballpark.

I find treantmonk's reviews to be off. I think his rankings in general are way too focused on the combat pillar (which he admits in this video), but I also think he is damaged focused and does not consider the non-damaging effects, including control and defensive and how they can be.

Also he seems to think good saves are more important than good AC, and that is upside down in my experience.